Folks - course is ridiculously short or the timer started his watch a minute into the race?
Hutchins is obviously a superstar but if my math is correct ( I have a Masters Degree in Ed Statstics she ran the last 1.1+ miles in 5:00 flat...makes the meet a joke...the organizers should post that their National Championship ?course was mismeasured.....23 girls under 18? Some of home who have never broken 20 min!!
Welcome to high school xc. Whatever the reason the course is farcical. 32 boys ran sub 15, something that has only been done twice in the entire history of nxn. The 2nd place girl's runner ran 16:56 after a previous, recent best of 18:07, and 11 girls ran in the 17:30s or above.
Do I think it is bogus? Yes. Does my opinion matter? No. Arguing for the integrity of high school xc records is unwinnable. It goes in the books. It gets the headline and the interview. Etc.
I had her going through the two mile in 10:22, so she ran slower than 5:00 the last 1.1.
Go to about 56:30 mark to see gold girls finish camera https://www.milesplit.com/videos/452396
Tullyrunners speed rated Hutchins at 167, which is probably very generous but falls in line with what people have been writing. By comparison Tuohy had a 176SR at Goddard.
Were you there? This course is not short. We live in a town full of engineers. They know how to measure a course. It is just a fast course. I’ve run it myself and it is spot on.
Doesn't really matter if the course was short/long/hilly/flat/wet/dry, etc. What matters is that she ran well and finished first because every XC is different. Even the same course under different conditions can be quite different. It's XC which is all about the place you finish at. Comparing times from course to course is rather elusive due to all the variables.
I can’t comment at all on this course but the one in Rhode Island was legit in terms of measurement. They run two large scale invitationals there the Ocean State course that Tuohy ran is accurate and is not the fastest course around. I mean it is fast but I have run on it and there is a lot of sandy, loose solid areas in the course and a small hill.
The other course there is the Brown Invitational course that Cheserek ran on. That course is short by about .1.
Also, FYI, 5k is 3.107.
I. Rex wrote:
So impressive. It is an absolute crime that we couldnt have Brown, Thorvaldson and Hutchins running in the same race this year because of Covid rather then watching them individually destroy their competition in three different "championship" races and wonder what could have been.
Rather THAN, not rather THEN. Jesus.
The Ocean State course was completely legitimate.
Don't know as much about this course, but someone noted that a 167 SR in prior years equated to 15:45 and that nothing short of a typhon or a freak meteor strike would prevent the record even with a relatively pedestrian effort. The easy predictions of very fast times here were accurate across the board and the final SRs bare this out.
So serious question, why doesn't Jenna have a splash page. If you support Jenna you should keep replying on this thread until Rojo and Wejo give this young lady credit and give her a splash page!
Glad to see the local press giving her the much deserved publicity. I'm not real sure why Letsrun even considers itself a running site. The lack of coverage on this young lady is ridiculous. Some sort of axe to grind for Letsrun I guess.
I checked Strava and noticed that the GPS measurement for most of those who completed the race ranged between 3.11-3.14. That appears to be a legit 5000 meters to me.
astro wrote:
Welcome to high school xc. Whatever the reason the course is farcical. 32 boys ran sub 15, something that has only been done twice in the entire history of nxn. The 2nd place girl's runner ran 16:56 after a previous, recent best of 18:07, and 11 girls ran in the 17:30s or above.
Do I think it is bogus? Yes. Does my opinion matter? No. Arguing for the integrity of high school xc records is unwinnable. It goes in the books. It gets the headline and the interview. Etc.
The second place girl actually has a previous best of 17:38 from the high altitude of Colorado, and she ran 18:02 at state, which is not an easy course and was run on a hot day. I would argue from experience that the state course was anywhere from 45-60 seconds slow when converting to a flat course at sea level. In fact, a lot of the kids in the top 30 are from CO, so their high altitude PRs are meaningless. Allowing for the fact that this course is a little short and a lot fast, you sound relatively clueless.
And, having grown up here and competed amongst the ranks of the high school “elite” in CO, let me just tell you that high altitude kids are just itching to get down to sea level to run “fast” times, whether it is xc or track. The only xc course in CO that runs like a track is Liberty Bell. That’s the closest thing to a “sea level” equivalent.
I’m pretty sure that this same girl ran 10:20 for two miles on the track in TN to kick off her high school xc career. And, no, I’m not related, nor affiliated with the program. I am just a follower of high altitude kids. It blows me away that more 2nd tier talent from Rocky Mountain states doesn’t get aggressively recruited.
Ok. This year I saw 18 minutes. But even so that is still a best by 40 seconds. But that wasn't the point.
Anyway the record was speed rated at 166 and I think that is pushing it and a lot of comparatively very fast times were run. .
Again, not disagreeing that the course may be slightly short and probably really fast given good conditions, Parker Wolfe barely PRd today from his Liberty Bell course record, which broke Cole Sprout’s record from last year.
What should tell you how good Hutchins’ race was is that she beat the runner up by almost a full minute. This runner up has run 10:20 for 3200 at not peak shape.
DougC wrote:
I checked Strava and noticed that the GPS measurement for most of those who completed the race ranged between 3.11-3.14. That appears to be a legit 5000 meters to me.
You are exactly right DougC. There are literally of 100s if not 1000s of logs of people running this course and uploading to Strava. They almost always range from 3.11-3.15.....seems like a 5k to me!
SCPF wrote:
Whatever the GPS watches are saying you can subtract 0.05 to 0.10 miles from that because GPS watches always give a reading that is longer than the actual distance. A true 5k will always come out around 3.15-3.2+ on a GPS watch. If I had to guess without actually measuring the course I would say it is around 3.05-3.07 miles but that is just a guess.
Laughable assertion